-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Kathryn Lopez has a moving, insightful, eloquent column on the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and on Rick Santorum’s message that got lost in the shuffle of him feeling queasy upon reading a famous JFK speech. Please do read it.
Here’s a nice passage:
Santorum, like Kennedy, is keen on the founding principle that the president should not attempt to impose his religious views on the nation. In a speech two years ago, he said that “while the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the concept of keeping the government apart from religion does.” And, like Kennedy, he believes that a candidate’s religious affiliation shouldn’t be a disqualifier for office. But the Kennedy speech presented a model for pushing religion to the margins of our public life, a fact that has impoverished a nation that once prized religion as an “indispensable” support to “political prosperity,” as our first president put it.
Charles J. Chaput, the current archbishop of Philadelphia, has said that Kennedy was “sincere, compelling, articulate — and wrong.”
Now this next bit I’m going to offer has nothing to do with what Kathryn wrote, but I can’t resist: Wouldn’t it be fun tomorrow if Santorum’s home state voters gave him a large percentage of the votes even though he has officially suspended his campaign? It would certainly provide conservatives a boost in keeping Mitt Romney’s feet to the conservative fire.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/23/klo-brilliant-on-santorum
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
J.C.Eaton| 4.23.12 @ 12:25PM
This is the time in a politician's career when his admirers try to tie up the loose ends and give him a nice little push towards immortality. The thing is, had Santorum remained faithful to the concept of true loyalty to priciple, he never would've turned his back on Pat Toomey in favor of the despicable Arlen Specter, convinced the pliable "W' to do the same, and might very well have been an enthusiastic Republican party's nominee.
Ted| 4.23.12 @ 1:08PM
It appears that it was "W" and / or his people convincing Santorum to back Specter based on the case that Specter would then be in a position to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee and shepherd "W's" expected Supreme Court nominations through the process. Which is in fact what happened.
The wisdom of whether that was the best thing or not is debatable. However, it did produce Mr. Chief Justice Roberts and Mr. Associate Justice Alito.
Drek| 4.23.12 @ 12:26PM
Santorum didn't say he "got queasy," ---------- YOU DID!
You put words in his mouth.
Why not post his original words, which made him sound like a nut-job?
That he had differences with JFK's take is fine, that he wanted to vent those differences, that too is fine.
But that he thought that the electorate would share his eagerness to excoriate JFK's words is not fine, but politically brain dead.
So for the rest of this campaign cycle can you and RSM spare us posts like these, and similar mystifying displays of Santorum nostalgia?
That Santorum was apt to go politically off the rails was expected, the guy always had a political tin ear.
But what of you?
the_dumb_oxette| 4.23.12 @ 7:18PM
Not everyone is as confused, I mean mystified, as you.
Drek| 4.23.12 @ 10:18PM
If Romney should lose, Santorum won't be the nominee four years hence.
The same groups against him now won't cease to be against him then, the same money probs he's had throughout this primary season will exist for him four years from now as well.
The same probs latent in his candidacy won't be solved by the passage of time.
He isn't going to become a better public speaker.
He won't shed his penchant for going off topic.
He isn't going to pick up any executive experience, or military experience, or legislative experience.
Four years from now our new Republican Governors and our new legislators are going to be stepping into the competition, and they're going to relegate Santorum.
So Hillyer's nostalgia is what I termed it, mystifying.
Drek| 4.23.12 @ 12:29PM
Lastly,
JFK was not "sincere," in that he never really gave much thought to the logical consequence of his speech. He was trying to win an election, not trying to lay down some edict that would last until the crack of doom, like some lawgiver from the age of antiquity.
JFK's speech has been hyped, and subsequently used to advance policies and attitudes that JFK would very much take issue with.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman | 4.23.12 @ 2:35PM
Santorum's position may win the approval of the current Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, but it's contrary to James Madison's -- and the Constitution's. I explore the matter for the Washington Post here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html
Scott| 4.23.12 @ 3:02PM
Santorum was dumb to say it the way he did. I voted for him,but he was wrong on that.
Drek| 4.23.12 @ 3:52PM
Which was par for the course with Santorum. That is, him being dead wrong in the way he said what he said, and the way he explained his positions.
Tomorrow is Pennsylvania's primary. And Santorum bailed in this race because he was going to lose his home state, and even Hillyer and RSM would have had serious challenges explaining that and rationalizing that away.
Clint| 4.23.12 @ 3:22PM
Virginian Founding Father Thomas Jefferson Had No Problem And Admired The Use Of His Native Albemarle County Courthouse For Religious Services By Four Different Protestant Sects On Alternating Sundays. Neither Did Jefferson Have A Problem With Chairs Of Theology And The Use Of His State University Of Virginia Facilities,With The Only Stipulation Being The Chairs Not Be Paid By The State Of Virginia.
Also,
" the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains."
Trinacria| 4.23.12 @ 4:06PM
"Wouldn't it be fun tomorrow if Santorum's home state voters gave him a large percentage of the votes even though he has officially suspended his campaign?"
Oh, yeah...that'd do wonders for the Republican nominee in the general election.
By the way - let's be frank, Santorum wasn't going to get a large percentage of the votes from his home state when he was still in the election...
Bob Miller| 4.23.12 @ 5:07PM
Maybe JFK thought correctly that it would be hypocritical for him to push traditional family values.
Mia| 4.23.12 @ 5:12PM
Yes, I think it's a BRILLIANT idea to hold Mitt's feet to the fire by voting for Santorum tomorrow. Mitt hasn't even got the nomination yet and he's ALREADY moving to the center!
PCP Smoker| 4.23.12 @ 9:57PM
This must be mental orgasm moments for bloggers. They quote and link and pat each other on the back. Try having physical sex next time. It might prove just as rewarding.
Oldefarte| 4.23.12 @ 10:36PM
IMHO to equate or join Kennedy with Santorum is putrid and revolting. Granted I do not think Santorum is POTUS capable, BUT he appears to be a truly class act as a father, as a husband, and as a human being. He lives his Catholic faith honorably, and people like him are few and far between in this world saldy. Kennedy on the other hand was [as was most all of the male clan memebers of that family] a thug disguised as a Catholic, as a husband, as a father, and most of all as a human being. Most of all, he was completely inept and incompetitent as POTUS, and he propagandizingly brainwashed the public into electing him [just as his offspring successfully did with the present POTUS]. In no way, shape or form should Kennedy even be mentioned in the same breath with Santorum, and to do so is an insult to Santorum!!!!!!!!
Purp| 4.23.12 @ 10:57PM
But for all his faults, JFK was far better as a president than his successor LBJ. The two hated each other, and the two lead to the death of 56,000 American soldiers.
W| 4.23.12 @ 11:13PM
Purp,
I agree with you.
Oldefarte| 4.24.12 @ 11:19AM
That like saying the Edsel was a better car than the Corvair....who really GAS? Both Kennedy and Johnson as typical Democrats were worthless socialists who hypocritically shoved governmental welfare upon the American taxpayers [who are still forced to pay for that useless garbage]. Johnson in addition to being the above was a traitoristic Southerner to boot. Both will go down in the annuals of history as destroyers of this nation!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.23.12 @ 10:39PM
PS: I'll in respect completely agree with Rick Santorum..........Kennedy [and his speech concerning Catholism] MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE!!!!!!!!
FeFe| 4.24.12 @ 1:09AM
This was one of the campaign highlights for me. I mean really, who couldn't get a chuckle out of talking about JFK's faith? It is so rare these days that he isn't mentioned in the same breath with Marilyn Monroe. Yeah, Kennedy's and religion? Haha But you know, bad press is good press as long as they spell your name right, no? and Rick was most eloquent on the Sunday talk shows and the like about everyone being welcome in the public square. Jen Rubin was like gagging and I'm laughing, but ol Mitt "fuddy-duddy" Romney had to shut down all the fun (and possibility of advancing the conservative cause) of a conservative principle discussion. Can't stray from Obama talking points! They'll soon have ol spoil sport meet the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg.
Bob K.| 4.24.12 @ 1:22AM
Lopez is too swept up in herself and in the zeitgeist to be a serious writer or she wouldn't be praising Kennedy who was an empty head.
Kennedy never thought anything or wrote anything on his own in his life. For whatever Santorum's thoughts are worth, at least they are his own.
Oldefarte| 4.24.12 @ 11:26AM
Kennedy probably couldn't even write his name on a personal check unless he had his daddy's approval first!!!!!!!!
el polacko| 4.24.12 @ 2:02AM
lopez and santorum represent the last gasp of the takeover of the GOP by the 'religious right'. as their influence is diminished, the strength and appeal of the party will improve.
Bob K.| 4.24.12 @ 10:15AM
That "takeover" always was a liberal fantasy of Democrats that many credulous RINOS bought as truth. Some still believe it.
Oldefarte| 4.24.12 @ 11:24AM
Instead, the 'religious right' needs to 'take over' this nation [instead of a political party], since we're increasingly headed for a fate similar to France's and other Europeon contries [that are now almost completely dominated by foreign religious fanatics, ie Muslims]!!!!!!!!!